click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130117
20130125
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
's foreign policy position. he sailed he wouldn't pick him as secretary of state because they have a very different philosophy, bill. bill: we'll see if she mentions some of the more fiery hot spots on the globe today, she's been traveling a million miles, isn't that what she said yesterday. >> reporter: we heard a lot about her traveling more than a million miles as secretary of state. those of who who like hillary clinton were applauding her for her service and her going all over the world and others wanted to ask tough questions about benghazi. martha: i see elizabeth war warren at the table there. is she playing a roam? we are seeing new faces in the senate. >> reporter: i think she has an introduction here. do you want to listen in. martha: sure. >> i know will continue in the tradition of john quincy adams and christian herder as great secretaries from the commonwealth of massachusetts. although john learned more about diplomacy overseas and in the senate he'll be the first to tell you that massachusetts is a great teacher of diplomatic skills. whether it was negotiating his way to
should be our foreign policy, keeping gadhafi empower, is that four or in opposition to american interests? i don't get them as issues' notebook. those are policy issues. i'm mainly concerned with regime issues. but you take your point, i am making a distinction between the democratic sovereignty and so i guess they don't have an objection to the overthrow of the burmese government. it would have an objection is a policy, i don't think to be a good policy to change every country in the world i am not advocating not in any sense. we can argue about different policies. i'm saying is a form of government, the liberal democratic nationstate is superior to other forms of government. one would be global governance. others isn't autocratic regime. i talk about russia and china has autocratic regimes than i do see any problem pushiness countries in a democratic direction, not by force, the public affairs and so on would be an acceptable policy. we could do it or not do it is a policy decision. of course there is radical islam, which establishes sharia as the constitutional structure and
's foreign policy, aid related or diplomacy in our presence throughout the world. you know, if you look back to, say, congress can 20, 25 years ago, it was essentially made up of people who had a relationship to world war ii and its aftermath in terms of u.s. global engagement, the marshall plan and the rebuilding of japan and america's presence. and the relationship also, i mean, and the lessons and the threat posed by the cold war. and those were very defining, major umbrella issues that produced great statesmen, henry jackson and others, on a bipartisan politics at the water's edge, america's presence b and engagement around the world. two superpowers of the um real la that kind of -- umbrella was kind of held over the world and stifled the kind of regional and local factions and tensions that erupted after the end of the cold war. that all had a significant impact on the american people and commitment, i think, and support for the commitment for the u.s. to be a global, globally engaged, the superpower. um, it was the possibility of a five-alarm fire, and everybody's in to try to keep th
. a couple of things we haven't heard, creation of jockbs and what's happening in north africa and foreign policy, at least not yet. where should they make a move? >> if the president is true to his word, he needs to do something about the economy, about job creation. there are more unemployed or underemployed people in this country today than there were when the president first took office. we've seen a 33% increase in spending on welfare programs. the african-american unemployment rate in this country is double the national average. and nothing that the president is talking about right now seems to be geared toward putting those people back to work. >> i want to put some numbers on the screen right now, it's fox news polling that's new and how the people feel about the president now compared with four years ago. 47% disapprove, compared with 16% four years ago and look at the flip-flop in terms of those who approve there on the screen, and 47-65%, the jobs that you're talking about, maybe point a little to that, but there are other things that you've written about in a column. >> absolut
in africa, and the challenges for u.s foreign policy. the attack on the u.s. consulate we're joined by former u.s. diplomat nicholas burns who served in republican and democratic administrations, he's now with the kennedy school of government and harvard university. and danielle pletka, vice president for foreign and defense studies at the american enterprise institute. with you and start with benghazi. was there more light shed today. where do things stand in terms of understanding what happened and the response to it? >> well, jeffrey, i thought it was a commanding performance by secretary clinton. she was well informed. she was a master of the detail, and all the-- and she took responsibility, which was the right thing to do. she said that she will implement all the 29 recommendations of the accountability review board. now, i think the republicans there obviously had a right-- and i think they had an obligation to ask tough questions because this was a disaster for the american foreign service to lose four people in one day, including ambassador chris stevens. but i must say jus
far. >> i have a foreign policy question but first i wanted to ask, for the administration's response, the house has now passed the three-month suspension of the u.s. debt ceiling. what's your comments? >> it's the same as it was yesterday. the president believes that we need to, as a country, do the responsible thing and without drama or delay pay our bills. meet our commitments. ideally we would extend a raise -- or raise the debt ceiling for a long period of time so that this is not a question, so that the uncertainty that has surrounded this issue of late because of the political strategy that house republicans have taken will be removed or would be removed. it is certainly important to recognize that the bill that passed the house today, the position that the house republicans took beginning late last week represents a fundamental change from a strategy that they pursued up until this point which is to try to link the debt ceiling to an ideological agenda of spending cuts in which the choice presented to the american people was, either face dramatic cuts in social security or med
of collective action on issues like foreign policy and trade, and when we leave the door from the open to new members. a new settlement subject to the democratic legitimacy and accountability of national parliaments where member states combined in flexible cooperation, respecting national differences and not always trying to eliminate them, and in which we have proved that some powers can, in fact, be returned to member states. in other words, a settlement which would be entirely in keeping with the mission for an updated european union i have described today. more flexible, more adaptable, more open, fit for the challenges of the modern age. now, to those who say, and there are those who say it, that a new settlement can't be negotiated, i would say listen to the views of other parties in other european countries arguing for powers to flow back to european states. and also look to at what we've achieved already. we have ended the obligation for britain to bail out the eurozone members. we have kept britain out of the fiscal compact. we have launched a process which turns an existing justice
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)